Skip to main content

About your Search

20130504
20130512
SHOW
( more )
STATION
MSNBCW 46
CNNW 32
CSPAN 27
FBC 17
CSPAN2 16
KNTV (NBC) 11
KQED (PBS) 8
KPIX (CBS) 7
COM 5
KRCB (PBS) 5
KGO (ABC) 4
SFGTV 4
KDTV (Univision) 2
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 2
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 269
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 273 (some duplicates have been removed)
report you mentioned builds on reporting of the weekly standard, and an early cia draft of these talking points stated, and i quote, the agency has produced anymore rouse pieces on the threat of extremist links to al qaeda in benghazi in eastern libya. there have been at laos five other attacks against foreign interests in benghazi including the june attack against the british ambassador's convoy. all that raised red flags for state department spokeswoman victoria newland who dashed off an e-mail to her enter agency colleagues saying, quote, the early cia draft could be abused by members of congress to beat up the state department. so why would we want to feed that? concerned, unquote. when the revised talking points still included links to one group, she sent off another e-mail warning we don't want to prejudice the investigation. however, an as yet unidentified national security council told newland the fbi did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple mineor suggestions. >> the back and forth between us and the cia in this regard. public affairs officer or spok
no fewer than 12 times, omitting reverends to a cia warning at the time of an al qaeda threat. what made this difference from fox reporting on this is that now everybody is reporting on this, and giving the press secretary of the united states a lot heat and questioning on this now. back to this. >> raises the objections to the fact the cia had warned bat terror threats in benghazi prior to the attacks. those subjects were taken out of the cia talking points at the direction of the white house, based on -- >> no first of all, they weren't at the direction of the white house. the only -- the process, as everybody is an equal player -- said everybody's concerns have to be listened to and taken into account. ultimately these were intelligence community talking points that intelligence community, led by the cia -- john, can i finish? -- that the intelligence community has to sign off and believes represents the intelligence community's view about what they knew about what happened. again, this would be more significant if we didn't acknowledge from the beginning that extremists were likely i
the new digital age sunday morning at 10:45. on c-span 3, former chief c.i.a. analysts on cold war intelligence during the eisenhower administration. that is sunday at 3:00. >> next the white house briefing with press secretary jay carney earlier today. a major topic of discussion was the report on benghazi. it says the c.i.a. talking points used by susan rice were revised by the state department to remove any references to terrorism. carnie discusses the acknowledge by the i.r.s. that they unfairly audited groups for their tax status. his briefing is about an hour. >> good friday afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here. i appreciate your patience. before i take your questions i want to note because it has been reported we did as many of you know, have a background briefing here earlier at the white house. i think 14 news organization were represented from online, print and the like. we do those periodically. we hope that the participants find them helpful. no one here thinks that is a substitute for this briefing that is why i'm here to take questions and with th
now reporting that the white house tried to hide the facts about benghazi. in fact, cia information was altered. we will talk with the abc news reporter who broke the story. >> is the president claims that it was appropriate to keep that information away. >> the language of that email is pretty clear. that is not a stylistic -- that ♪ saying gel adjustment. that is a major, dramatic change. >> information. >> as the benghazi story heats up, the white house is under fire. we'll show you what happened in the press conference today. >> hey, john, john, it's chris. hey, john, john, it's chris. >> there is that guy again. >> governor chris christie mocking himself with famous people. gutfeld and mcguirk will try to explain what the heck is going on. >> are you kidding me? >> caution, you are about to enterth enterth s no spin z. the factor begins right now. >> hi, i'm bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. the benghazi story heats up. that is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. if there is one guy you would not want to be today, it was white house spokesman jay c
house, the state department and the cia was about talking points -- how to talk about the tragedy on tv, what to say, what not to say. to quote former secretary of state hillary clinton, what difference at this point does it make? well, to those involved in this investigation, trying to track down how the attack happened in the first place and how the story was then wrongly told at first, it makes a lot of difference. it's where we begin tonight with our chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell. good evening. >> reporter: good evening, brian. the e-mails we have been shown prove what the white house first said about not being involved in the benghazi talking points is just not true. in fact, the state department and the white house were far more involved in watering down the benghazi talking points than they have been saying for months. the benghazi tragedy quickly turned into what insiders call a knife fight between the state department in charge of the mission where ambassador chris stevens and information specialist sean smith died. and the cia which ran a separate outpost
and the state department on the cia talking points. >> but again i think you are forgetting a couple of things here. the whose as i said made maid one minor change to the talking points drafted by and produced by the cia. >> concern was concern about how congress would react a factor in the talks? >> if you look at the development of the talking points, the answer to that is no. >> jay, you told us that the only changes that were made were stylistic. is it a stylistic change to take out all references to previous terror threats in benghazi? >> i appreciate the question again and what i was referring to was the talking points that the cia drafted and sent around to which one change was made. i accept that stylistic may not precisely describe the change of one word to the other. >> these were concerns raised by the state department that the white house direct the interagency process to, to use in making the talking points. >> i think again. >> the original version included references to al-qaeda and references to islam. the original cia version included extensive discussion of the previous threa
. >> the word goes out to the cia, fbi and all the intelligence services. find the connection. >> first, though, the war on terror goes to afghanistan. to capture or kill osama bin laden and destroy the taliban regime that supports al qaeda. by november, the enemy is on the run, forced to flee into the mountains and across the border to pakistan. but while bin laden remains at large, washington's attention turns to iraq. to saddam. >> i think the united states, since "desert storm" has always had a, a, a various planning with respect to iraq. >> "operation desert storm." also known as the first gulf war. in 1991, following iraq's invasion of kuwait, a u.s.-led coalition of 34 countries drives saddam's forces out of kuwait and decimates the iraqi army in six weeks. but despite that overwhelming victory, president george h.w. bush faces criticism at home for not going all the way to baghdad to rid the world of saddam hussein. >> i made very, very clear from day one, that it was not an objective of the coalition to get saddam hussein out of there, by force. >> dick cheney, defense secretary at the
on the right. we now have e-mails showing the state department pushed back on talking points from the cia and expressed concern about how some of the information would be used politically in congress. you have said the white house only made a stylistic change here. but these were not stylistic changes. these were content changes. so again, what role did the white house play? not just in making it but in directing changes. >> well, thank you for that question. the way to look at this is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what that. who was responsible. in response to a request from the house permanent select committee on intelligence, to the cia, the cia began a process of investigation points that could be used in public by members of congress. by members of that committee. and that process as is always the case, again, led by the cia involved input from a variety of agencies with an interest in or a stake in the process. that would include the state department since it was a state department facility that
led by the cia -- john, can i finish? you had a long time there. >> adding to the drama. the prescheduled press conference was delayed twice. carney finally arrived at the podium three hours later than first planned. a lot of tension in the room when he walked in. why? because a lot was at stake, everyone. today we formally learned that the white house and the state department were heavily involved in the editing of the talking points used by the administration following the attacks in benghazi. something they previously denied. in fact, today jay carney doubled down saying the white house made only one edit, changing the word consulate to the word diplomatic post. the thing is there were 12 rounds of edits. among the first thing taken out of the draft is islamic extremists with ties with al qaeda participated in the attack. jim acosta who you just stlau was in the room asking questions and he's "outfront" tonight. that was an intense press briefing. we don't usually see them like that. >> that's right, erin. and i think that's because of what the white house said back i
and islamic extremist and the warnings the cia provided about how dangerous benghazi had become. all scrubbed, scrubbed, scrubbed. so now abc reports on it and expands on it in john karl's defense he did a good job. so now it's news. people are getting a little nervous. you add to that the whistleblower testimony this week on capitol hill. those three state department employees taking an oath to tell the truth on what happened during that night of terror on september 11th that left four americans dead. and now they are coming under attack. gregory hicks, one of the main wednesdays may already be paying the price. he says he was reassigned after he questioned what susan rice told america on the sunday talk shows to a low level desk job. he did not believe what she told us and now we know he had cause for his concerns and now he has been demoted. our own james rosen presented the state department or pressed, i should say, the state department ahead of mr. hicks' testimony, listen to this exchange from monday. >> are greg hicks and mark thompson credible people? are they not long-standing career
that the cia and is using drones. the cia drone program is secret is one of the worst kept secrets in the world. it's undermined by a legitimacy to make that claim. but it takes us to the question of how are we using this weapon or any other weapon? helicopter airships have also been used to carry out the program of targeted killing. that is the heart of the debate. know is deeply troubling. i think there is general agreement among its international law scholars that the use of lethal force is permissible under international law, and human-rights law, in response to a specific concrete and imminent threat. in the law of war context, when you are in an armed conflict, it would be permissible against civilians who are directly participating in hostilities, as those terms are defined under the laws of war and as long as other requirements are met. what has been made public in speeches by administration officials -- and i do appreciate that the speeches have been made -- alice well as the white paper that was first leaked -- is that those are not the standards being applied. if you look at the whit
frustration at obama administration's revolve from references from the al-qaeda that the c.i.a. prepared the day before. >> i respect that the people who spoke up in the course of these hearings. you know, they were there. they felt the horror of that terrorist attack. and obviously it's emotional, but i hate to see it turned into a pure prolonged, political process that really doesn't tell us anything new about the facts. >> reporter: separately, abc news jonathan carl reports having obtained 12 versions of the benghazi talking points. according to that report, an early c.i.a. draft listed inferences about warnings about deteriorating situation in benghazi. victoria newland emailed her colleagues. early draft could be abused by members of congress to beat up the state department. why would we want to feed that either? when the revived document still included references to the culpability 6 a group, they sent another email, we don't want to prejudice the f.b.i. investigation. at that point, abc said that national security council official pushed back telling newland the f.b.i. did not ha
al qaeda affiliate. and mentioning previous cia warnings about extremists in benghazi. in the end, officials dropped both references from the final version. the state department spokeswoman also added, quote, these don't resolve all of my issues or those of my building's leadership. it's unclear if that leadership included then secretary of state hillary clinton. the attack on september 11th of last year killed our u.s. ambassador to libya christopher stephens. state department official sean smith and two former navy seals tyrone woods and glen doherty. our james rosen live in our d.c. newsroom with more on this. james? >> pretty rough day for jay carney at the white house. >> that's right, harris. his was to be sure uninvisible duty today. the white house press secretary struggling to explain why interagency team labor day through 12 versions of the now infamous talking points that u.n. ambassador susan rice delivered on the sunday shows september 16th, five days after the attacks. spontaneous protest gone awry and later shown to be false never more so than now when the drafts of
with human intelligence, the c.i.a. and other were able to alk through the varies provinces and -- various provinces and talk to people. they cannot do that anywhere in north korea. i have met some people who are unning a special university. king jong-un allowed to run. they were very intelligent people and educated mostly in science and technology. politics out of -- outside of it. they came and talked to us and we asked questions. the only thing he could talk out were the few people they met in that compound. the few people they met outside, they had no stories to tell at all. they haven't been outside. they cannot talk about north korea in general. that's the situation. now, the people of east asia -- asia often criticize western medicine because they observe symptoms and they true to cure it. an ave a headache, take aspirin. get rid of the symptoms and the fundamental symptoms that caused the headache still remains. i think we might be doing the same thing here. we are gattering information and trying to do something about the symptom but what is the real cause? why is it not happenin
engel, and the military leader of the syrian forces and the cia own other intelligence experts are more moderate, less islamist, more secular. that's been the hope of the administration, they were hoping to either arm them or get them better training and not put weapons on the ground. all of the international experts have spoken to ambassadors from other countries, are saying there is no way that they will back away from the assad regime. so with the support of iran, with the support of the really tough front supported by al qaeda factions and the support of russia, it is right now, the balance of power, is more or less with the regime. it may change the balance of power today, though. this is a very strong warning to assad. >> our understanding from u.s. officials and again, this is preliminary reports, so we are taking this from unnamed officials. i think there is a little bit of a grain of salt we should approach this with. but u.s. officials told msnbc news that the weapons were on their way out from syria to lebanon to hezbollah. there's been concern growing, not just among israel,
to ansar al sharia, raise ed objections to the fact the cia warned about terror threats in benghazi prior to the attack. those subjects were taken out of the cia talking points at the direction of the white house based on -- >> no, they weren't. first of all -- the only -- this process, everybody is an equal player in this process, says everybody's concerns have to be listened to and taken into account. but ultimately, these were intelligence community talking points that the intelligence community, led by the cia, had -- >> changed because of objection. >> john, could i finish? you had a long time there. that the intelligence community has to sign off on and believe represents the intelligence community's view of what they knew at that time about what happened. and, again, this would be more significant if we didn't acknowledge from the beginning that extremists were likely involved, that we didn't acknowledge from the beginning that it could very well have been ansar al sharia that was involv involved, al qaeda, itself, or other al qaeda affiliates. this is an effort to accuse the admin
drafted entirely by the cia. and that neither hillary clinton's state department nor the white house made anything more than stylistic changes. >> the single adjustment of these two institutions were changing the words consulate to diplomatic facility. >> reporter: but today, abc news has exclusively obtained 12 versions of the talking points, showing they went through extensive edits. the early drafts pointed to evidence that an al qaeda-affiliated group took part in the attack and that the cia had warned of al qaeda threats in benghazi. secretary clinton's spokesperson objected, saying in an e-mail obtained by abc, that the information, quote, "could be abused by members of congress to beat up on the state department for not paying attention to warnings. so, why would we want to feed that?" after those objections were raised, all references to al qaeda and the cia warnings were deleted from the cia talking points. cia original version included references to al qaeda. those were taken out after the cia wrote its initial draft. >> and the cia wrote another draft -- >> reporter: based on i
was behind that? the white house says not them. the cia began. the cia in this case deputy director of the cia. the cia. >> alisyn: well, this morning we will separate fact from fiction for you. >> and if the dead boston bomber was buried in your backyard, how would you feel about that? >> i'm a christian jesus says love your enemy. >> i'm disgusted. i think it's disrespectful. >> fierce debate taking place in a town near you. and targeting the tea party and conservatives. the irs admitting they did it and now they say they are sorry. but is the apology accepted? we report, you decide. "fox & friends" hour one starts right now. get the coffee. >> alisyn: good morning, everybody. good morning, guys. clayton morris, good morning. >> get the coffee this morning. probably glad at the white house that it's the weekend right now. no more white house press briefings that they have to deal with like whew, we get a few days off from the press grilling us over the latest benghazi news. >> it's not just fox. the story that this network almost alone has kept in the news for the past five months
department pushed back against talking point language from the cia, and expressed concern about how some of the information would be used politically in congress. you have said the white house made a stylistic change here, that these were not stylistic changes, these were content changes. so, again, what role did the white house play, not just in making but directing changes? >> well, thank you for that question. the way to look at this, i think is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in benghazi, an effort was under way to find out what happened, who was responsible. in response to a request from the house permanent select committee on intelligence, two of the cia -- the cia began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of congress, by members of that committee. and that process, as is always the case, led by the cia, involved input from a variety of agencies with an interest in our stake in the process and that would include obviously the state department since it was a state department facility that was attacked and amba
and said they were made for purely political reasons. she objected to this cia references to al qaeda groups as well as cia warnings about terrorist threats in the months preceding the september 11th attack. one e-mail said "the early cia draft could be abused by members of congress ought to be dip the state department for those were not paying attention to warnings so why would we want to be that? >> and those references were scrubbed she noted the changes did not resolve all of my issues of the building leadership. that being of course, secretary of state hillary clinton. "the weekly standard" steve it pays one negative stephen hays that petraeus was shocked when he reread the talking points as the original c.i.a. assessment was blocked to call it an attack from islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda. jay kearney today responded to the new revelations of a lengthy and testy press briefing where he continuously tried to point* the finger away from president obama. >> it was the state department. >> this process everybody is unequal players said ever buddies concerns have to be list
and produced by the c.i.a. even prior to that had very few input on it. the other discussions that went on prior to this in an interagency process reflected the concerning of a variety of agencies who had a stake in this issue. >> kimberly: dana perino, your . >> hi, greg. quite a day. it reminded me a little bit of what it was like to be in the white house briefing room, in particular the u.s. attorney scandal but i don't remember being under the gun like jay carney was today. they would like to think this briefing will solve everything and everyone there will continue to move on and pretend that benghazi never happened. however, i do think that the hearing the coverage, the additional information built on the steven hayes report from the weekly standard that we talked about last friday, built upon by jonathan carl of abc news who found that there were 12 iterations. two main things i think what remain to be answered but there are others, first is, what of the things that the white house says they did not want to speculate early on. except that they speculated and blamed the youtube vi
narrative saw a focus on the cia talking points used by susan rice in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. the reason rice was going nuts on those talking points eight months after the fact is thanks to a new detail on abc news that those were revised 12 times and edited before they arrived on the sunday shows. they were made with input from the state department, and at least one of those edits was apparently designed to make it harder for members of congress to, quote, beat up the state department. in other words, some people working inside the government and in politics edited some talking points to protect themselves politically. and if that is a scandal in washington, then every single blackberry is a d.c. crime scene. it should not come as a surprise that republicans are trying to drive the new cycle into a frenzy over the full cycle they've been trying to manufacture over the benghazi talking points for months now. the real question is why are they making a big deal over the fake benghazi scandal than they are the real scandal over the irs having targeted certain groups? and the ans
the administration believed that this was a terror attack, the cia analysis, the intelligence analysis that it was a cia attack, that did not appear in the end. what we've learned in some of the negotiations, if you will, over e-mail, victoria nuland and jake sullivan of the state department raised concerns and said some things according to our sources who reviewed those e-mails, concern about naming an al qaeda affiliate before they were able to talk about that publicly, concerns about how it might be played politically on the hill, one phrase was "beat the state department for not taking heed of early warnings" those kinds of things and in the end a source tells me that cia director at that time david petraeus received the final version, looked at it and said "just as soon not use it. it doesn't even include that we had warned about what was going to happen in cairo," those other events. >> from the state department, chris, their perspective is, this is one of the e-mails, nuland writing on friday, as the bodies were coming back and hillary clinton and the president were at andrews a
a of that up tonight with former c.i.a. operative michael sawyer who led the bin laden unit and thomas mcnerney and congressman robert lotta on the losing war on tracking and the crush the keystone pipeline. someone inside the obama white house is issuing threats and intimidating employees of the state departmental that wishes to share critical information. fox news chief washington correspondent james rosen has our report. >> state department pushed back against charges first aired on fox news alleging that benghazi whistleblowers have faced threats and intimidation. >> we do have to look at the issue and de-politicize it. american people deserve answers. i'm determined there will be an accountable and open state department. >> the state department would never tolerate sanction retaliation against whistleblowers on any issue. that is an obligation we take very seriously. >> president obama professed to be aware of loaning standing efforts to question survivors of the benghazi attack in which terrorists killed the u.s. ambassador to libya and three other americans. >> i'm not familiar wit
, but maybe i am wrong. >> that used to be the thing. i can't join the cia and i can't be president. all of those things i did in my senior year in albania. no -- it is a horrible job to be a politician. that's why it is heavily populated by horrible people. who wants that job? you gave wiener a -- sanford a pass and weaner is a [bleep], but the fact of the matter is not only was he caught, but he lied about it. >> and it was a weird lie. >> appalachian trail? two things that outraged everyone during this was that there was a politician who lied and was misusing taxpayer dollars. >> he said he was a guy that slept on a cot in his office and was so fiscally responsible. >> ya, with the argentine yen woman. >> there is a lot of kids that will not go to the appalachian trail because it has been sheared by infidelity. i won't hike there. >> here is the good news. most on the appalachian trail don't don't know what be smir of means. >> why do you have t.o. smear an entire -- why do you have to smear an entire group of people? >> let's not over look everything here. as creepy and awful as wien
they would to preserve their honor and dignity and the cia guys, i respect them. they put their lives on the line and they don't get an opportunity to tell the families what they have done. will they tart breaking and telling their stories? >> i think the next set of hearings will bring in the military people and cia people and ask the questions like you asked. i am tired of seeing the cia get beat up. they live under such a cloud of secrecy. and they are good people and honorable people and the cia would not have left them behind. i know them too well. there has to be more hearings and we are calling for a bipartisan commission and bring in the military and cia people and get to the bottom of this. >> i hope it happens. general, thank you. and christian, you having first- hand knowledge. >> the family members of the benghazi victims get the answers they wanted in the hearings? i will ask the mother of shawn smith next. [ bell dings ] [ crowd cheering ] . syst >> the fact is, we have four dead americans, was it because of a protest or guys out for a night deciding to kill americans, w
. michele: then today, reports that the c.i.a. talking points on the benghazi attacks were changed a dozen times in a series of small -- in a series of email exchanges between the white house, the c.i.a., and the state department. leading to questions about what the administration knew and when. this afternoon, the white house tried to explain how and why those were edited. >> just remember that these are talking points. not policies. talking points. to this day have been shown to be wrong in only one instance. and that was the existence of demonstrations preceding the attack. and so all of this, from the beginning, the republican attempts to politicize this, has been based on that single thing which we corrected once we knew that it was no longer a correct description of what happened. michele: so peter, let's begin with those talking points. what changed over the course of those 12 edits in all of those email exchanges? >> exactly. jay carney today said only one thing turned out to be wrong. what he didn't say is what was left out. what changed between the initial version and the final v
and we he should have given the cia the ability to go kill and capture just as we have done to the the al-qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan and we are conducting a criminal investigation and to date we have nothing to show for it. it is incredible. >> geraldo: there were three suspects named only now. what do you make of that, general? >> i don't understand it. and what it is telling me is there is not much to this investigation. less ton what i'm saying. the cia knew who did it within 48 hours. they knew the leaders of aas who were inflicting damage in benghazi for a year. they know the organization well. we could have begun to take that organization apart almost immediately following that attack. and we should have been on them ever since that time until we destroyed that organization. and now we are putting free people who are in it on the internet to see he if somebody knows them? this makes no sense to me. >> geraldo: do you think it is possible that the political bickering over the hot topic has impeded the information? has impeded the investigation? >> i think it as huge polyfailur
community, c.i.a., drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points. the fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the white house were stylistic and nonsubstantive, corrected the description of the building where the facility in benghazi, from consulate to diplomatic facility, and the like. >> bret: stylistic and nonsubstancetive. >> yeah. what jay carney said there is untrue. we have the talking points. we've seen them. we've seen the changes that were made. they were dramatic changes that came out of this meeting, the deputies committee meeting, top obama administration officials on the morning of september 15. they took out references to islamic extremists. the talking points in that meeting were basically rewritten and to a certain extent, the night before by political appointees of the white house. so what you had were talking points provided by the c.i.a. that looked one way, going into this 24 hour interagency process and on the other end, came out looking entirely differently. wholes
. >> remains the case is the intelligence community, c.i.a., drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points. the fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the white house were stylistic and nonsubstantive, corrected the description of the building where the facility in benghazi, from consulate to diplomatic facility, and the like. >> bret: stylistic and nonsubstancetive. >> yeah. what jay carney said there is untrue. we have the talking points. we've seen them. we've seen the changes that were made. they were dramatic changes that came out of this meeting, the deputies committee meeting, top obama administration officials on the morning of september 15. they took out references to islamic extremists. the talking points in that meeting were basically rewritten and to a certain extent, the night before by political appointees of the white house. so what you had were talking points provided by the c.i.a. that looked one way, going into this 24 hour interagency process and on the other end, came out looki
and supporters saying she just read the cia talking points. >> yes. well, they have found that victoria newland, the state department spokesperson for hillary clinton at that particular time, wrote, in an e-mail, this requires glasses. >> that's fine. that's fine. we will show the same v.o. 12 seconds of ben ghazi while you put your glasses on! do that one right there! >> perfect. yes,ier. >> what did he say? >> so the talking points had that the agency had produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremist link to ben ghazi and a eastern libya, et cetera, and she said get those out of there and she says it just could be abused by members of congress to beat up the state department for not paying attention to warnings so why would we feed that? >> oh, my gosh. >> so that paragraph is now gone. >> so it wasn't just a cold, calculated cia analyst at langley putting these talking points together? >> no. and now -- so then the white house says, well, but we really didn't do it. >> who did? so, michael. >> yes. >> this is politics. there are a lot of things to be concerned about. certainly this, yo
you very much for the invitation. >> what do a four star general, a cia operative and ann coulter -- before copd... i took my son fishing every year. we had a great spot, not easy to find, but worth it. but with copd making it hard to breathe, i thought those days might be over. so my doctor prescribed symbicort. it helps significantly improve my lung function starting within five minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. with symbicort, today i'm breathing betr. and that means...fish on! symbicort is for copd including chronic bronchiti and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. with copd, i thought i'd miss our family tradition. now symbicort significantly improves my lung nction, starting within 5 minutes. and that makes a difference in my breathing. today, we're ready for whaver swims our way. ask your doctor aut symbicort. i got my first prescription fr
, made one minor change to the talking points drafted by and had ed by the c.i.a. and few inputs on it. discussions that went on prior to this reflected the concerns of a variety of agencies who had a stake in this issue, both the f.b.i. because it was investigating, the c.i.a., obviously, and other intelligence agencies. the state department because an ambassador had within killed and a diplomatic facility was attacked. the concern was not provide information that was speculative in terms of whether it was real la strength what happened. happened. to what the discussion about -- the republicans again on in this ongoing efforts when mitt romney took political advantage out of his in a move that was not approved by members of his own party. -- this were the we trying to play down an act of terror and an attack on the embassy. the president himself in the rose garden said this was an act of terror. he talked about it within the context of september 11, 2001. we had other officials of the administration refer to this as a terrorist act. susan rice when he went out on the sunday shows us
that the cia drafted and sent around to which one change was made. and i accept that stylistic may not precisely describe the change of one word to another. >> this was not a change of one word to another. these underwent extensive changes after they were written by the cia. >> there was an interagency process which is always the case. >> that was jonathan carl asking that question. he's one who broke this story for abc. danielle, let me begin with you. when you look at the editing of the talking points, is this the way it looks when you're watching sausage being made, or is this evidence of some form of cover-up. >> well, i think it's a little bit of both, honestly. clearly, in any executive branch discussion, you're going to have different agencies fighting with each other. protect their interests and turf. the issue here is, what was the white house looking for in taking out all references to terrorism? that's the part that really concerns me because it goes along with what was later said about this not being terrorism, suggesting that, in fact, it was all about a youtube video.
to -- to islam? the original cia version included extensive discussion of the previous threats of terrorist attacks in benghazi. those were taken out after the cia wrote its initial draft. >> turning now to the continuing questions over the obama administration's handling of the benghazi terror attack. white house press secretary jay carney on the defensive as reporters grilled him on the newly released e-mails that show a top state department official pushing to water down the initial intelligence reports about that attack. carney is firing back at republicans who he says are trying to politicize the controversy. we have the latest on the story that continues to raise more questions. dug? >> reporter: yesterday marked a real watershed day in the benghazi affair. for the first time in the eight months since the compound was attacked, white house spokesman jay carney was pummelled repeatedly with questions from skeptical reporters and not just from fox but from his competitors and major media. that after abc news reported yesterday that the cia's first draft of the benghazi talking points wh
news report that 12 revisions were made in the benghazi talking points. first issued by the cia. the first draft said, and we quote, we do know they participated in the attack. the final draft after the 12 revisions which susan rice delivered on the five talk shows made no mention of al-qaeda. her remarks attributing it to an anti-islam film was not true given what the cia knew. shear one of carney's attempts to explain that. >> we knew that -- we believed based on the intelligence assessment ks stream mists were involved, and there was suspicions about what affiliation the extreme mythses might have of the there was not hard, concrete evidence. >> one of the people now at the center of the controversy is victoria in newland, the spokeswoman. in e-mails obtained by the weekly standard and abc she objects to the wording of repeated cia warnings about the deteriorating situation in benghazi quoting, the early cia draft could be abused by members of congress to beat up on the state department to not beat up on warnions. warnings. she signs it, concerned. when the re-advised talking
upset, so they deal with the c.i.a. a lot. that's why there is tension between the f.b.i. and nypd. he went on to sarks the guardian database is available for anyone to see. but if you don't know to look for somebody, why would you randomly plug in a name and look to cross check it? >> steve: just because there is a keyboard right this and the data is in there, that's one thing. but if you have somebody from your town, goes to russia, disappears for six months, there is an inclination he may become radicalized and you don't tell the local cop. what happened yesterday, they looked like they were pointing fingers. but ultimately if this gets everybody on the same page where they change things going forward, it will have been a good day. >> gretchen: it will. but people should still be upset because that was the whole point of creating all these agencies in the communication after 9-11. 12 years ago. i think people will still be frustrated to find out they still weren't doing it and by the way, the cops didn't know the names of tamerlan tsarnaev, so it would have been helpful, i think, to
to the whistleblowers testifying on wednesday, we have information people from the cia want to come out and of it, but they have been told by the cia director brennan specifically they will be pole gravid if they are tied to this. do you have any information to -- >> i her the same story. there are cia agents reaching out. they feel frustrated. the cia generally got it right and they feel lrustrated about what happened that night before and after. we will see where it goes. >> are these cia agents in the ground in benghazi that night or cia agents, people here in washington? >> it's my belief at least one of them was on the ground but time will tell. the dam is about to break on benghazi. >> you wrote a letter march 15th to the state department and today you are finally getting one back. and it's from the thomas gibbons active assistant secretary of affairs, and he says, among other things, that he says the department appreciates your interest in talking to the five state department diplomatic security agents who survived the attack. statement we have serious concerns about their welfare and want
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 273 (some duplicates have been removed)